5 ms·

Nothing wrong with using Twitter to meet people IRL. It seems weird to force those artificial boundaries on your social networks.

Jtsummers 11y ago
Perhaps I've just missed it, but my problem with twitter is this: Is there a way to send messages to just these 10 people, and not all 100 followers? That's what I need from a social network. I need a public (everyone can see) channel, and I need channels (that I control) that are visible to specific individuals and groups. My soccer team (in general, some overlap obviously) doesn't need to know about my ballroom dance plans or my BJJ tournament or my date this Saturday. And none of them need to know about my family reunion plans (zero overlap), though I may post some photos to the public channel. If the adoption in my friend groups had been higher, G+ seemed perfect for this to me. FB with effort, making groups that I invite people to. But I want it to be transparent. I want you to see me, not me(soccer) and me(ballroom). If you happen to be in both, it's the same, not separate spaces.
- the_watcher 11y ago
  I've never used it, but in interviews, Mark Cuban describes Cyberdust as a social network that allows that, claiming it's a reason he invested in it.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Google+ does all this and more. How I wish Google hadn't tied the name to the youtube cleanup / real name policy. My opinion is that real names policies mostly should die. Basically the idea that real names will cause people to behave is a fallacy for a number of reasons: 1. Trolls use fake accounts 2. Some people seems to honestly believe that "just nuke Iran/Syria/Israel/Gaza" is a smart comment 3. or they don't care about the consequences of posting dumb stuff. The only people you stop with real names policies are those with dissenting opinions, who don't make fake accounts and who feel they have something to lose.
- steveklabnik 11y ago
  There are group DMs now.
- baudehlo 11y ago
  Facebook messenger has group messaging. Just use that. You can message people who you aren't "friends" with.
johnward 11y ago
That seem like natural boundaries to me. That's what the platforms target. I wouldn't want the random people that follow me on twitter knowing the kind of things I post on Facebook.
dasil003 11y ago
It doesn't seem weird to me in the least, it's the nature of those two products that points in those directions. Sure Facebook wants you to make everything public, and sure Twitter offers private profiles and some private features like DMs, but in general they naturally gravitate towards the type of usage the GP describes.
avens19 11y ago
I've used Twitter to meet like minded people, however, I think the main distinction is that I don't use Twitter (in general) for interactions with people I met outside of the Twitterverse

Jtsummers 11y ago

Perhaps I've just missed it, but my problem with twitter is this: Is there a way to send messages to just these 10 people, and not all 100 followers? That's what I need from a social network. I need a public (everyone can see) channel, and I need channels (that I control) that are visible to specific individuals and groups. My soccer team (in general, some overlap obviously) doesn't need to know about my ballroom dance plans or my BJJ tournament or my date this Saturday. And none of them need to know about my family reunion plans (zero overlap), though I may post some photos to the public channel. If the adoption in my friend groups had been higher, G+ seemed perfect for this to me. FB with effort, making groups that I invite people to. But I want it to be transparent. I want you to see me, not me(soccer) and me(ballroom). If you happen to be in both, it's the same, not separate spaces.

the_watcher 11y ago
I've never used it, but in interviews, Mark Cuban describes Cyberdust as a social network that allows that, claiming it's a reason he invested in it.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Google+ does all this and more. How I wish Google hadn't tied the name to the youtube cleanup / real name policy. My opinion is that real names policies mostly should die. Basically the idea that real names will cause people to behave is a fallacy for a number of reasons: 1. Trolls use fake accounts 2. Some people seems to honestly believe that "just nuke Iran/Syria/Israel/Gaza" is a smart comment 3. or they don't care about the consequences of posting dumb stuff. The only people you stop with real names policies are those with dissenting opinions, who don't make fake accounts and who feel they have something to lose.
steveklabnik 11y ago
There are group DMs now.
baudehlo 11y ago
Facebook messenger has group messaging. Just use that. You can message people who you aren't "friends" with.

johnward 11y ago

That seem like natural boundaries to me. That's what the platforms target. I wouldn't want the random people that follow me on twitter knowing the kind of things I post on Facebook.

dasil003 11y ago

It doesn't seem weird to me in the least, it's the nature of those two products that points in those directions. Sure Facebook wants you to make everything public, and sure Twitter offers private profiles and some private features like DMs, but in general they naturally gravitate towards the type of usage the GP describes.

avens19 11y ago

I've used Twitter to meet like minded people, however, I think the main distinction is that I don't use Twitter (in general) for interactions with people I met outside of the Twitterverse